ABSTRACT 
Title of Document: 
Directed By: 
SELECTED LATE-ROMANTIC RUSSIAN 
PIANO MUSIC 
Hung Luo, Doctor of Musical Arts, 2007 
Professor Bradford Gowen 
School of Music 
In music study, the term "Romantic" usually refers to the period of European 
music between approximately 1800 and 191 0. However, the term "Romantic" can 
also refer to style rather than chronology. For instance, Rachrnaninoff wrote 
Romantic music in the 1930's, a period of time much later than what most people 
would consider to be the Romantic period. The compositional characteristics of the 
Romantic period included flexible forms that responded to emotional demands, an 
exploration and extension of harmonic language, and emphasis on the significance of 
melody. From the pianistic standpoint, the instrument's singing qualities were 
revealed, reflecting the tendency of artistic expression to be very personal. In 
addition, composers often demonstrated great virtuosity and mastery over their 
instruments. 
The nationalistic characteristics of Michael Glinka and the styles of Western 
pianist composers such as FrkdCric Chopin, Robert Schumann, Johannes Brahms, and 
especially Franz Liszt influenced the late-Romantic Russian composers in an 
immense way. At the same time, the late-Romantic Russian composers left a rich 
legacy to later Russian composers in their nationalistic elements, love of color, and 
virtuosity (such as found in Igor Stravinsky's Three Movements from "Petrushka " 
and Serge Prokofieff s Sonatas). A new element from the later composers is found in 
their percussive approach to the piano. 
Many late-Romantic Russian composers wrote piano music, including Char 
Cui, Nicolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Modest Mussorgsky, Peter Ilich Tchaikowsky, Anton 
Rubinstein, Sergei Taneyev, and Felix Blumenfeld. For my recital programs, I 
selected works from this period by familiar composers such as Sergei Rachrnaninoff 
and Alexander Scriabin, as well as by less familiar ones, including Alexander 
Borodin, Alexander Glazunov, Mily Balakirev, Anatoli Liadov, Anton Arensky, 
Sergei Liapunoff, and Nikolay Medtner. 
I have divided these composers into three categories. The first category 
includes Borodin, Glazunov, Liadov, and Arensky. These composers usually excelled 
in composing smaller-scale character pieces of the salon style. The second category 
comprises Balakirev and Liapunoff, whose music is characterized by virtuosity. The 
third category includes Medtner, Rachmaninoff, and Scriabin, who were eclectic in 
their gifts, and wrote in large forms as well as miniatures. 
SELECTED LATE-ROMANTIC RUSSIAN PIANO MUSIC 
BY 
Hung Luo 
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the 
University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of 
the requirements for the degree of 
Doctor of Musical Arts 
2007 
Advisory Committee: 
Professor Bradford Gowen, Chair 
Professor Gerald Fischbach 
Professor Mikhail Volchok 
Professor Larissa Dedova 
Professor Bei-Lok Hu 
0 Copyright by 
Hung Luo 
2007 
Dedication 
To my father, who is resting in the presence of the Lord. 
Acknowledgements 
There are a number of people to whom I owe thanks for helping this project 
get off the ground. I would like to thank my advisor Professor Bradford Gowen for 
his advice, guidance, refinement, and support during the process. I am indebted to 
him for his abundant knowledge and precise teaching. His uncompromising musical 
integrity is respectable. Thanks are also due to my former teacher Professor Gregory 
Sioles, whose insightful inspiration influenced my performances; and whose keen 
musical understanding and contagious passion for music has been permanently 
imprinted in me. An acknowledgement is also due to my dissertation committee: 
Professor Gerald Fischbach, Professor Larissa Dedova, Professor Mikhail Volchok, 
and Professor Bei-Lok Hu for their valuable time in overseeing this project. 
I want to thank the assistance in researching my performance repertoire of the 
International Piano Archives at Maryland. Thanks are due to Maxwell Brown, Carol 
Stone, and Jarl Hulbert, all of whom edited my dissertation. Jarl, thank you so much 
for your sacrificial giving of time. I am blessed to know you as a friend with 
tremendous grace and character. Maxwell Brown, who provided valuable insight on 
my performance is also deeply appreciated. 
My gratitude goes to my two chamber partners: violinist Shih-Yun Hsieh and 
cellist Victor Coo. Shih-Yun, thank you for all your efforts on this project. Victor, 
you inspired me not only with your outstanding musicianship, but also with your 
communicative warmth, kindness, and generous fiiendship. 
Special thanks are due to my spiritual mother Christine Chang. Without her 
unceasing, fervent prayers and enduring of all kinds of obstacles with me through th~s 
endeavor, this dissertation project just would not have been the same. I am truly 
indebted to all my friends such as Mark Stoner, Shau-Ling Barrett, and many others 
who continually prayed and showed their support. They are awesome gifts from God 
and their heartfelt friendships are very dear to me. 
My deepest gratitude and honor goes to my mother, as well as to my father 
who went to be with the Lord about two years ago. Their love, patience, and support 
in the long process is amazing and beyond measure. 
The One Whom I can never thank enough is the Lord Jesus Christ, who walks 
with me through all the seasons of my life. I want to thank God for His unconditional 
love and acceptance when I was still a big mess; the hope He offered me when I felt 
helpless; His availability and understanding when I needed someone to communicate 
with; and His amazing, unique way of cheering me up and making me feel special. I 
want to thank God for establishing His kingdom in me and turning the impossible to 
possible. He has done so much in me and for me in the whole process, which makes it 
all meaningful. I also want to thank Him for being the center and joy of my life. Dear 
Jesus, Your love makes my heart sing! 
Table of Contents 
. . 
...................................................................................................................... Dedication 11 
... 
....................................................................................................... Acknowledgements 111 
........................................................................................................... Table of Contents iv 
.......................................................................................................................... Recital I 1 
Recital Program ........................................................................................................ 1 
Notes on the Program ................................................................................................ 2 
.............................................................................................. Alexander Borodin 2 
........................................................................................... Alexander Glazunov 3 
.................................................................................................... Mily Balakirev 6 
................................................................................................. Anatoli Liadov 10 
........................................................................................ Sergei Rachmaninoff 11 
........................................................................................................................ Recital I1 17 
...................................................................................................... Recital Program 17 
.............................................................................................. Notes on the Program 18 
........................................................................................ Sergei Rachmaninoff 18 
.................................................................................................. Anton Arensky 23 
...................................................................................................................... Recital 111 28 
Recital Program ...................................................................................................... 28 
Notes on the Program .............................................................................................. 29 
............................................................................................... Nikolay Medtner 29 
.................................................................................................. Anton Arensky 30 
. . 
............................................................................................ Alexander Scnabin 33 
............................................................................................... Sergei Liapunoff 35 
................................................................................................................ Bibliography -37 
Recital I 
Recital propam 
"Au Couvent" from Petite Suite 
Theme and Variations, Op. 72 
Polka in F-Sharp Minor 
Scherzo No. 1 in B Minor 
Intermission 
Barcarolle, Op. 44 
Alexander Borodin (1 833-1 887) 
Alexander Glazunov (1 865-1 936) 
Mily Balakirev (1 837-1 9 10) 
Anatoli Liadov (1 855-1 914) 
Biryulk (Children's Games), Op. 2 
No. 1 Presto 
No. 2 Allegro 
No. 5 Vivace 
No. 6 Allegro 
No. 8 Allegro moderato 
TabatiBre a musique (A Musical Snuffbox), Op. 32 
Variations on a Theme of Corelli, Op. 42 Sergei Rachmaninoff (1 873-1 943) 
Hung Luo, Pianist 
Wednesday, February 8,2006 at 8:00 pm 
Joseph & Alma Gildenhorn Recital Hall 
Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center 
The University of Maryland at College Park 
School of Music 
Notes on the Program 
This recital program is the result of my exploration and study of the 
distinctive stylistic characteristics of piano works written by five Russian composers 
representing the late-Romantic period: Alexander Borodin (1 833-1 887), Alexander 
Glazunov (1 865-1936), Mily Balakirev (1 837-1 910), Anatoli Liadov (1 855-1914), 
and Sergei Rachmaninoff (1 873-1943). 
ALEXANDER BORODIN (1 833-1 887) 
"Au Couvent" from Petite Suite (1 884-5) 
Borodin was born illegitimately into a princely family. As an adult, he was 
tom between music and his activities as a distinguished professor of chemistry with a 
genuine love for his work. When Borodin was in hls late twenties, he met Balakirev, 
who was the center of the composer group eventually known as "The Five," and 
Borodin became a member of the group as well. In addition to Balakirev and Borodin, 
"The Five" also included composers Nicolai Rimsky-Korsakov (1 844-1 908), Modest 
Mussorgsky (1 839-1881), and Cksar Cui (1 855-191 8). 
Borodin's output of piano works was extremely limited. He began the Petite 
Suite, his major work, during the winter of 1884-5 and completed the piece in the 
early summer of the latter year. The suite was dedicated to the Countess Mercy- 
Argenteau, and is subtitled Petit d 'amour d'une jeunefille (Little love of a young 
girl). The piece includes seven movements: Au Couvent (In the Monastery), 
Intermezzo, Mazurka I, Mazurka 11, Reverie, Serbnade, and Nocturne. The first and 
most famous of these, "Au Couvent," is presented in a symmetrical ABCBA (arch) 
form. Its distinctive atmosphere communicates a monastic serenity enhanced by 
tolling bells heard at the beginning in the A section. Borodin emphasizes contrasts 
between the upper and lower registers. The suggestion of bells through the use of 
overtones is an example of an effect which has been popular with many Russian 
composers. The middle section contains an imitation of chant-like choral singing, first 
by the trebles in the B section, then with octaves in the bass in the C section. The 
sonority of the middle section builds, rising to a fortissimo climax. In contrast with 
the intense middle section, the chant-like melody returns calmly in the second B 
section. Finally, in the second A section, the monastic bell tones recede into the misty 
atmosphere heard at the end of the piece. The bell and chant elements serve most 
effectively to unify the entire work. 
ALEXANDER GLAZUNOV (1 865-1 936) 
Theme and Variations, Op. 72 (1 900) 
Glazunov studied with Rimsky-Korsakov and was later greatly influenced by 
Franz Liszt (1 81 1-1886), Richard Wagner (1813-1883), and Johannes Brahrns 
(1 833-1 897). The music of Glazunov thus exhibits both Russian nationalism and 
European influences. Glazunov was most successful composing with smaller forms 
and he tended to be structured and academic in his writing. His music, thus, may 
sometimes sound uninspired. Yet beautiful melodies and harmonic treatments abound 
in his works. 
Glazunov's Theme and Variations, Op. 72, completed in August 1900, reflects 
the styles of a variety of composers. The F-sharp minor theme has a strong Russian 
flavor, and it is followed by fifteen variations. The theme opens in what sounds like A 
major, with a single melody line in chant-like fashon. In measures four to five, there 
is a plagal cadence, which adds to the already established religious atmosphere. 
Surprisingly, the theme ends in F-sharp minor. The chorale-like first variation retains 
the melody in the top part, as does the second variation, with its running sixteenth- 
note triplet accompaniment. The third variation is slower in tempo, with inner-voice 
writing and syncopation created through the use of notes tied over bar lines. A more 
elaborately pianistic fourth variation is the first of the variations in which Glazunov 
departs from the original melody. The downbeat is displaced in the right hand. He 
begins the melody and then breaks it off. The contour of the right hand moves 
downward, with an extended arpeggio in hemiola rhythm. An interesting aspect of the 
fifth variation is its orchestral texture, while the sixth variation, marked Largo, has a 
double-dotted left-hand rhythm set against a sixteenth-note figuration that leads to the 
contrapuntal Allegro of the seventh variation. An active and energetic left hand lends 
the seventh variation a quick march-like feeling while a lively compound-rhythm 
drives the etude-like eighth variation beginning in A major. The ninth variation, still 
in A major, is marked Adagio tranquillo. The additional instruction quasi campanelli 
(as if bells) encourages the performer to emphasize the bell-like sonority of the music. 
The central section of this ninth variation shifts into the key of F major and expresses 
an Eastern character similar to that found in "Pagodes," from Estampes (1903), 
composed by Claude Debussy (1 862-191 8). Descending and ascending scales 
accompany the melody in the etude-like tenth variation (in the original key of F-sharp 
minor) followed by an eleventh variation consisting of a gentle F-sharp major 
Allegretto. Variation eleven has an underlying three-beat feel-a departure from the 
two or four-beat feel of previous variations. In the final four variations, Glazunov 
presents new ideas to bring the work to a close. The twelfth variation, for example, 
contains more freedom as Glazunov alternates between different tempi and 
incorporates more harmonic depth and more frequent changes of key. The 
arpeggiated chords of this variation center on the key of D major; the variation begins 
with two measures conveying a heavy, rich texture, followed by four measures in a 
lighter mood. In contrast, the thirteenth variation, in F-sharp minor, provides the 
listener with the stability of a perpetual motion with octaves in the right hand. The 
etude-like impression and demanding technique of this variation are reminiscent of 
works of Liszt. Contrasts continue with the cross-rhythmic G-flat major Andante 
tranquillo of the fourteenth variation. Its theme is stated in the inner part, and its key 
is the enharmonic equivalent of the tonic major. While the previous variation 
(thrteen) evokes the feeling of Liszt, the two-against-three cross-rhythm in variation 
fourteen is more similar to the style of Brahms-rich in texture, with chords in the 
right hand and moving triplets in the left. The final variation, fifteen, portrays a 
considerable variety of moods, opening with heavy chords alternating with a playfully 
fast scherzando section and continuing with the general idea of contrast. The 
scherzando conveys a woodwind-like texture, and some of the figurations in the left 
hand of this variation are unpianistic and awkward, such as the extended intervals that 
are too wide to be easily reached. Momentum is gained towards the end of the work, 
with strong chords and octaves. 
MILY BALAKIREV (1 837-1910) 
Polka in F-Sharp Minor (1 859) 
Scherzo No. 1 in B Minor (1 856) 
Balakirev was a musical figure of substantial influence in Russia and had a 
great deal of impact on the development of Russian music. Though well known for 
hs roles as pianist, conductor, leader, educator and advocate of Russian music, 
however, Balakirev has become almost totally forgotten as a composer. His original 
piano works, whch constitute a large and important part of his creative output, are 
not well known today. Most western pianists are unaware of these excellent pieces, 
and, with the exception ofjust of few of them, Balakirev's piano compositions are 
currently out of print. The most recent Soviet collection of his piano works, compiled 
by K.S. Sorokin and printed in 1961, is available in the United States only in a few 
university libraries.' 
Musical essayist V.V. Stasov asserts that Russian music might have a 
different direction altogether had it not been for Balakirev's  influence^.^ V. Karenin 
goes even further, claiming that without Balakirev's guidance and leadership, many 
composers, such as Mussorgsky, Borodin, Rimsky-Korsakov and Cui, would have 
1 
Vera Breheda, "The Original Solo Piano Works of Mily Balahrev" (DMA diss., University of 
Washington, 1983), 3. 
* V.V. Stasov, Selected Essays on Music-(London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1968), 96, Quoted in Vera 
Breheda, "The Original Solo Piano Works of Mily Balakirev" (DMA diss., University of Washington, 
1983), 3. 
been very different and possibly lesser musicians and might even have failed to 
become composers at all.' Further, it is difficult to imagine what would have 
subsequently happened to Alexander Scriabin (1 872-1915), Rachrnaninoff, 
Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky (1 840-1893), and Igor Stravinsky (1 882-1 971), who were 
all influenced by the composers mentioned above.4 
It is another great Russian composer, Mikhail Glinka (1 804-1 857), who is 
credited with inspiring Balakirev to spread the doctrine of musical nationalism, whlch 
resulted in Balakirev becoming the leader of the Russian National School. This 
movement gained momentum in the 1860s, when Balakirev brought together a group 
of musicians (which, as mentioned earlier, also included Mussorgsky, Rimsky- 
Korsakov, Borodin, and Cui) first known as "Balakirev's Circle" and later as the 
"The Mighty Handful," "The Mighty Five," or simply "The Five." The primary 
purpose of the group of composers was to collect and edit the native folk-tunes of 
their Russian homeland. 
While Balakirev was quite interested in composing orchestral music, he was 
also an excellent pianist. He wrote more than one hundred piano compositions: thirty- 
eight solo pieces; more than a dozen piano transcriptions; forty piano duets, the 
majority of which are based on Russian folk songs; four piano chamber works; and 
two piano concertos, the first concerto being only one movement in length. 
Balakirev's original solo piano works include mazurkas, nocturnes, scherzos, waltzes, 
character pieces with various titles, and a large-scale sonata. Given the genres 
V. Karenin, "Obituary of Balalurev", in Russkaya Mysl(l9 10): 19 1, quoted in Vera Breheda, 
"The Original Solo Piano Works of Mily Balakirev" (DMA diss., University of Washington, 1983), 3. 
Vera Breheda, "The Original Solo Piano Works of Mily Balakxev" (DMA diss., University of 
Washington, 1983), 3. 
mentioned above, the influence of Frederic Chopin (1 8 10-1 849), is evident. In 
addition, Balalurev's difficult piece Islamey (1 865), a fantasy incorporating 
distinctive Eastern characteristics, reveals the clear influence of Liszt. 
Balakirev's compositional style for the piano combines traditional Western 
music, Russian folk music, and Eastern elements. The impact of Chopin and Liszt is 
reflected in Balakirev's elegant melody lines replete with romantic lyricism, graceful 
ornaments, and highly figurated, flowery passages which often demand a strongly 
developed technical facility. Balakirev's harmonic language seems derived in part 
from Chopin's harmonic coloration and in part, also, from the tonal freedom of 
Glinka. From Glinka, Balakirev's music seems to have inherited its transparency and 
clarity. Balakirev's indirect hints at folk melodies also suggest Glinka's influence. 
Even when there are no actual folk tunes found in the music, however, Russian and 
Eastern folk elements still affect Balakirev's compositional style, especially the 
through melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, and tirnbral aspects. Although Balakirev's 
approach reflects incorporation of a wide variety of influences, his personal synthesis 
created a new and distinctive piano style with its own unique and recognizable 
character. 
Periods of intense creative activity for Balalurev were often interspersed with 
lengthy intervals of compositional stagnation. His thirty-eight original piano works 
can be divided into three periods: early (1 854-1 861); middle (1 869-1 886); and late 
(1 898-1 9 10). Nine of the thirty-eight works were written in the first two periods, and 
the remaining twenty-nine were written in the last twelve years of Balakirev's life. 
Balakirev produced only five works during the first period: Scherzo No. 1 in 
B Minor, Nocturne No. 1 in B-Flat Minor, Polka in F-Sharp Minor, Mazurka No. 1 in 
A-Flat Major, and Mazurka No. 2 in C-Sharp Minor. These five early pieces are 
mostly characterized by a salon style whch can also be heard in others of his piano 
compositions such as some of his later mazurkas and waltzes. 
The Polka in F-Sharp Minor, written in 1859, was the earliest Balakirev piano 
composition to appear in print. It was first published by Denotkin, and later by 
Gutheil. The polka is a type of Bohemian dance in a quick duple meter with 
characteristic rhythms. Although based entirely on one simple, Russian-sounding 
melody, Balakirev's Polka establishes variety, partly through its alternating sections 
of major and minor tonalities. The piece is preceded by an introduction, proceeds as a 
rondo in ABACA'B' form, and ends with a coda. 
Scherzo No. 1 in B Minor was written in 1856, published by Stellovsky in 
1860, and later reissued by Gutheil. It exhibits an obvious similarity to Chopin's own 
Scherzo in B Minor (1 83 1-2). Both are presented in the same key, and both are in 
ABA form (with introduction). In addition, the sustained chord at the end of 
Balakirev's introduction employs exactly the same harmony as the opening chord 
(iiD7) of Chopin's Scherzo. 
ANATOL LIADOV (1855-1914) 
Barcarolle, Op. 44 (1898) 
BiryuIk (Children's Games), Op. 2 (1 876) 
No. 1 Presto 
No. 2 Allegro 
No. 5 Vivace 
No. 6 Allegro 
No. 8 Allegro moderato 
Tabutiire a musique (A Musical Snuffbox), Op. 32 (1893) 
The works of Liadov range from single pedagogic pieces to extended 
compositions. They are typically written in a delicate and graceful style, exhibiting 
the influence of Chopin while maintaining a clear Russian character. Liadov's 
Barcarolle, Op. 44, exemplifies these traits. This piece was written in 1898, fifty-two 
years after Chopin's Barcarolle in F-Sharp Major, Op.60 (1845-1 846). Not only is 
Liadov's work written in the same key as Chopin's Barcarolle, but the pedal point, 
compound meter, left-hand figuration, florid notes in one hand set against 
accompaniment in the other hand, fragments of melody in the left hand 
accompaniment, parallel thrds, sixth and octaves all reflect Chopin's style. 
Liadov is at hIs best in his charming short works or "miniatures." His 
Biryulk (ChIldren7s Games), Op. 2 (1 876), a collection of such miniatures, is suffused 
with great charm, Russian nationalism, humor, gentle irony, and child-like innocence. 
In the first miniature, No. 1 Presto, in ABA form, Liadov obscures the meter, only to 
make it clear again later. He uses the same device as well in miniatures No. 5 Vivace. 
In the meno mosso section of No. 1, the style of composition is reminiscent of 
Papillons, Op.2, No. 1 and "Valse noble" from Carnaval, Op. 9 (1 834-35) by Robert 
Schumann (1 8 10-1 856). While miniature No. 2 Allegro is through-composed, the 
scherzo-like No. 5, like No. 1, is presented in ABA form. Miniature No. 5 is a fun, 
joking piece, which relates the work to its title. The middle section of No. 5 contains 
an alternating dialogue between the hands. As in miniatures No. 1 and No. 5, 
miniatures No. 6 Allegro and No. 8 Allegro moderato are written in ABA form. The 
grace notes in No. 8 clearly depict children playing. In the middle section, the grace 
notes are reversed from the top to the bottom evoking a teasing sense of fun. 
Liadov's most famous piece is TabatiBre ci musique (A Musical Snuff Box), 
written in 1893. This popular piece cleverly imitates the song of a mechanical music 
box. 
SERGE1 RACHMANINOFF (1 873-1943) 
Variations on a Theme of Corelli, Op. 42 (1 93 1) 
A pupil of Anton Arensky (1 861-1906) and Sergei Taneyev (1 856-1 915), 
Rachrnaninoff was further influenced by Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, and 
Brahrns. In addition, Rachmaninoff s musical style was imbued with Russian 
nationalism. The lyrical, intense, and often passionate melodies of Rachmaninoff are 
usually supported by sonorous, rich harmonies suffused with a keen dramatic mood. 
Rachmaninoff wrote two sets of variations: Variations on a Theme of Chopin, 
Op. 22 and Variations on a Theme of Corelli, Op. 42. Twenty-eight years separate the 
composition of the works; the first set was written in 1903 and the second set in 193 1, 
The Chopin variations comprise Rachmaninoff s first solo attempt at a large-scale 
form for the piano, while the Corelli variations stand both as Rachmaninoff s last 
work for piano and, also, the only piano-solo opus composed during the composer's 
twenty-six years of exile in the United States. Opus 22 is a longer work, yet the 
Corelli variations display a more mature orchestral style, with a clearer texture and 
greater rhythmic and harmonic freedom. 
The Corelli variations comprise a collection of twenty variations with an 
intermezzo situated before the fourteenth variation and a coda placed at the end of the 
opus. The first thirteen variations are all presented in the key of D minor. The 
Intermezzo then precedes two variations in D-flat major. For the last five variations 
and the Coda, Rachrnaninoff returns to the original D minor key. Rachmaninoff 
indicates that variations eleven, twelve, and nineteen may be omitted if desired. This 
work seems preparatory for his Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, which he 
composed three years later, in 1934. Many of the Corelli variations (such as number 
ten) foreshadow the later Rhapsody. 
Rachmaninoff wrote to Nikolay Medtner (1880-195 1) about the Corelli 
variations on December 2 1, 193 1, from New York: 
I am sending you my new variations. I've played them here about 
fifteen times, but of these fifteen performances, only one was good. 
The others were sloppy. I can't play my own compositions! And it's so 
boring! Not once have I played these all in continuity. I was guided by 
the coughing of the audience. Whenever the coughing increased I 
would skip the next variation. Whenever there was no coughing I 
would play the proper order. In one concert, I don't remember 
where-some small town, the coughing was so violent that I only 
played ten variations (out of twenty). My best record was in New 
York, where I played eighteen  variation^.^ 
Maurice Hinson's program note from "Klavier Variations on La Folia", James Bonn, Klavier 
Records: Released 1982, KS-571. LP. 
The thematic basis of the work is a Portuguese dance melody La Folia which 
had been used by several previous composers including C.P.E. Bach (1 7 14-1 788), 
Luigi Cherubini (1760-1 842), and Liszt. Rachmaninoff mistakenly attributed this 
melody to Corelli, because of its use in Corelli's twelfth violin sonata. Rachmaninoff, 
however, changed the Adagio tempo found in the violin sonata to Andante in his set 
of variations. After the initial treble statement of the theme of the work, the first 
variation presents the thematic melody in a lower register while maintaining most of 
the original hamonies of the theme. Some altered rhythms create a syncopated 
feeling, and the polarity between the treble and the bass registers produces different 
levels of sound. Rachmaninoff favored use of the bass to enrich the sonority of his 
music. Perpetual motion is employed as a device throughout the second variation, and 
the treble clef is favored. In contrast, the third variation moves to the bass register. 
The left hand contains many octaves, and has a more expanded role than in the 
second variation. In the fourth variation, there is a return to the treble as at the 
beginning. Rachmaninoff tends to provide variety in a number of ways, such as 
through changes in register, dynamics, rhythm, and texture. He creates contrasts not 
only between the variations but also within the same variation. In fact, contrasts 
pervade the entire piece. In the fourth variation, the composer uses chromatic grace 
notes in the accompaniment to contrast with the theme. As the variation continues, 
the range of the register expands. Supplying contrast yet again, the punched-out 
sound in the marcato fifth variation gives a more powerful and energetic effect in 
comparison with the solemnity of the fourth. The fifth is the first variation in whch 
Rachmaninoff creates variety through meter changes and the first time he uses triplets 
in this piece. 314 meter is followed by 214 meter, which gives the effect of a 514 time 
signature. In the sixth variation, there is a return to the high register, while the triplets 
continue. The meter becomes consistent, yet the mood and dynamic of this variation 
changes abruptly from the forte marcato of the fifth variation to apiano leggiere e 
staccato style. Next, perpetual motion is employed throughout most of the seventh 
variation. The last four measures include a downward flourish. As in the seventh 
variation, the left hand of the tipsy eighth variation begins with the D octave and 
returns to D at the end. Rachmaninoff often uses D octaves, also, as a pedal point in 
the ninth variation. Although Rachmaninoff was a twentieth-century composer, his 
emphasis on tonality makes his music quite accessible to the audience. The 
improvisatory tenth variation is written in the high registers and contains meter 
changes again, but it does not provide as much contrast as does the beginning of the 
fifth variation. In the middle section, there is a cadenza-like gesture in the downward 
motion of the chromatic scale. Near the end, there are changes from duple meter to 
triple meter, which creates more measured contrast. The eleventh variation is the first 
and only variation not to start with D. Instead, it starts with F. The right hand contains 
some upward arpeggios. Following the left-hand octaves and the overall chordal 
structure of the twelfth variation, 918 meter appears for the first time in the tlrteenth 
variation; the rhythmic patterns are grouped in threes but the variation still has a 314 
feeling. The rhythmic pattern of an eighth note followed by a sixteenth rest, a 
sixteenth note, and an eighth note permeates this variation creating a dotted-rhythmic 
effect. The same rhythm can be found later in variations eighteen, nineteen, and 
twenty. 
An improvisatory, cadenza-like Intermezzo serves as a dividing point after the 
thirteenth variation and sets the stage for the modulation from D minor to the D-flat 
major in the fourteenth and fifteenth variations. The fourteenth variation is quite 
reminiscent of the theme of the work. The compositional technique Rachmaninoff 
uses here is similar to the idea of the recapitulation in sonata form-the return of the 
theme. Different from the previous variations, the dolcissimo fifteenth variation 
carries a distinctive, tender mood, which provides a special moment in the piece. 
Many previous compositional techniques can be found in the sixteenth variation 
including contrast of treble and bass registers, upward and downward motions, and 
interjections of chromatic-triplet sixteenths. Such interjections are also found in the 
second, tenth, and eleventh variations. The compositional techniques of the sixteenth 
variation are expanded later to include cross-hand technique. In the seventeenth 
variation, the melody, an augmentation of the theme, is accompanied by a left hand 
figure that contains a new rhythmic figure, an eighth note and triplet sixteenths 
followed by three more eighth notes. The meter changes from 414, to 214, and then to 
614, but the accompaniment remains the same until the last four measures. Although 
the eighteenth variation presents the same rhythm as the thirteenth variation and 
corresponds harmonically with it as well, the stronger dynamic intensity and the 
larger leaps of the chordal figures and the thicker texture all increasingly build the 
momentum toward the end. The chordal figures become wider in range and more 
difficult in the nineteenth variation because of the rapid hand shifts. The texture 
changes at approximately the half-way point, and ends with descending chromatic 
chords. The final variation continues to exploit the rhythmic figures found in the 
thirteenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth variations. It is considered the most technically 
demanding variation of the piece because of the extreme leaps and extended hands. 
The range opens wider due to the large leaping octaves and chords. This variation not 
only begins with octaves in D, but also ends with three measures of D octaves 
preceding the Coda, a reflection of how much Rachmaninoff favors tonality. Many 
repeated compositional techniques reappear in the slow and melodic coda, such as 
triplets, changing meters, emphasis on the note D, and a clear reference to the theme 
in the last measures, concluding quietly th~s brilliant, well-rounded work. 
* * * * * 
Recital I1 
Recital program 
Sonata in G Minor, Op. 19 for Cello and Piano Sergei Rachrnaninoff (1 873-1943) 
Lento 
Allegro scherzando 
Andante 
Allegro mosso 
Intermission 
Piano Trio No. 1 in D Minor, Op. 32 
Allegro moderato 
Scherzo 
Elegia: Adagio 
Finale: Allegro non troppo 
Anton Arensky (1 861-1906) 
Hung Luo, Piano 
Shih-Yun Hsieh, Violin 
Victor Coo, Cello 
Thursday, May 1 1,2006 at 5:30 pm 
Homer Uhch Recital Hall 
Tawes Fine Arts Building 
The University of Maryland at College Park 
School of Music 
Notes on the Pronram 
This recital program is the result of my exploration and study of the 
distinctive stylistic characteristics of piano works written by two Russian composers 
representing the late-Romantic period: Sergei Rachmaninoff (1 873-1 943) and Anton 
Arensky (1 861-1 906). 
SERGE1 RACHMANINOFF (1873-1943) 
Sonata in G Minor, Op. 19 for Cello and Piano (1901) 
Lento 
Allegro scherzando 
Andante 
Allegro mosso 
A pupil of Anton Arensky (1 861-1 906) and Sergei Taneyev (1 856-1915), 
Rachmaninoff was further influenced by Frkderic Chopin (1 8 10-1 849), Franz Liszt 
(1 8 1 1-1 886), Robert Schumann (1 8 10-1 856), Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky (1 840-1893), 
and Johannes Brahrns (1 833-1897), and was flavored with Russian nationalism. The 
lyrical, intense, and often passionate melodies of Rachmaninoff are usually supported 
by sonorous, rich harmonies combined with a keen dramatic sense. 
In Rachmaninoff s Cello Sonata in G Minor, Op. 19, the piano dominates, and 
yet interweaves with the cello part. Although Rachmaninoff did not write much 
chamber music, this four-movement Cello Sonata is well known. The Cello Sonata, 
composed in 1901 around the same time as the Second Piano Concerto in C Minor, 
Op. 18 (1 900-1901) was dedicated to Rachmaninoff s friend and cellist Anatoli 
Brandukov (1856-1930); he and the composer premiered the work in Loskow on 
December 2, 1901. The Cello Sonata Op. 19 bears some resemblance to 
Rachmaninoff s Second Piano Concerto, probably because of their closeness in time 
of composition. Both works are grand in scale with long, lyrical melodic architecture 
and bravura passage-work for the piano. The use of tonal centers is also similar. 
The piano part is more than mere accompaniment-the technical demand for 
the pianist is extreme. In addition, difficulties in maintaining proper balance between 
cello and piano pose a significant problem. The rich, sonorous piano texture can 
easily overpower the cello's single melodic line. In spealung of this balance problem, 
Geoffery Norris writes: 
Rachmaninoff did not really overcome the problems of instrumental 
balance in his finest ... chamber work.. .However, he shows a closer, if 
not intimate, knowledge of the expressive possibilities of the 
cello.. ..The piano part is certainly the more skillfully constructed of 
the two, yet the intensity and drama of the music can...amply 
overcome any deficiencies of instrumental balance.' 
The Sonata begins with a recitative-like introduction much in the same 
manner as the Second Piano Concerto begins with an introduction. The first 
movement of the Cello Sonata, in sonata-allegro form, consists of the introduction, 
three extensive sections, and a coda. The introduction, marked Lento, does little to 
establish the tonic key area of G minor, but does provide important motives, such as 
the two-note phrase based on the interval of a minor second-the most important 
interval in this movement. The thematic structure is traditional in the use of a pair of 
main themes; however, Rachmaninoff distinguishes the themes by the use of two 
tempo indications. The be1 canto-like first theme is given the tempo marking of 
Allegro moderato, but changes to con mot0 as it modulates away from G minor in the 
Clyde E.Beavers, "A Survey of The Works For Violoncello And Piano By Sergei Rachmaninoff' 
(DMA diss., University of Kentucky, 1997), 97. 
exposition. Rachmaninoff likes to change the time signature in order to allow for 
expansion in certain places. For instance, he changed the time signature at measure 32 
from 414 to 614. The second theme, basically in D major, is marked Moderato. When 
Rachmaninoff changes from theme to theme, he sometimes changes the 
accompaniment patterns of the piano part as well. An example of ths can be found in 
measures 18 and 53, the sixteenth-note broken chords in the first theme change to 
solid chords at the second theme. The closing theme, which is an extension of the 
lyrical second theme, is marked Un poco pizi mosso. Rachmaninoff often uses 
different rhythmic values to help create various moods. The development, for 
instance, begins with a thirteen-measure section marked Tempo I (Allegro moderato). 
An accelerando increases the tempo to Con moto. Rachmaninoff develops his use of 
sixteenth-note groups and triplets from the exposition extensively into chromatic, 
virtuosic keyboard writing. Groups of triplet figurations foreshadow the rhythmic 
pattern which occurs at the beginning of the second movement. The effect of three 
eighth notes plus an eighth note rest at measure 165 is the same as two eighth notes 
plus a quarter note in the beginning of the Allegro moderato. The beginning of the 
Allegro molto, being unstable both tonally and rhythmically, serves as an preparation 
for the recapitulation. A truncated first theme is presented with a more chromatic and 
tension-producing piano accompaniment. There is no marking such as Tempo I to 
indicate this theme, and the earlier Con mot0 material is absent. The G major second 
theme, on the other hand, returns entirely. The coda begins with an exact repetition of 
the beginning of the development, harmonically altered in measure 264 to return to a 
g minor tonality. Rachmaninoff also often combines either different rhythmic patterns 
in instruments, or changes the rhythmic patterns from one section to another section 
to provide great diversity. The conclusion of the rhythmically diverse coda uses 
elements of the development and a short closing theme, providing for a large-scale 
virtuosic and intense ending to the movement. 
The overall form of the second movement, Allegro scherzando, appears to be 
a rondo (ABACABA) since the motivic theme returns so many times. However, one 
could also argue for a ternary structure (ABA C ABA), partly built with motivic 
elements that provide for contrasts in mood from section to section, both in mode and 
musical material. The first occurrence of the A section (ms. 1-80) contains two 
distinct thematic areas; the B section (ms. 8 1-1 42) provides a contrast in mood, often 
which the A section (ms. 143-2 19) returns, with the addition of a closing coda (ms. 
220-233). The movement is in C minor, the subdominant of the sonata's G minor 
tonality. The movement's harmonic progressions are not, however, based on classic 
tonic-dominant relationships. The harmonic framework of this movement comes from 
mediant relationships, so prevalent in late nineteenth-century repertoire. All of the 
key areas represented in the scherzo are related to the tonic through a cycle of thirds. 
For example, the B section, in A-flat, is a major third below C, key of this movement. 
The scherzo, structured in large part by rhythmic pattern, makes particular use of two 
motives: bJT]J;-3J and JTJ P which, combined with constant running 
triplets in the accompaniment, provide exceptional forward propulsion of the musical 
ideas. Rachrnaninoff does not use as many rhythmic contrasts as in the first 
movement, and, even more than in the other movements, balance between the two 
instruments is a main challenge. The cello part is in the low register, together with the 
piano, most of time. The long melodic line appears at the un poco meno mosso (ms. 
33-48) again. As in the first movement (m. 32), at measure 69, Rachmaninoff uses 
expansion again by changing the time signature from 1218 to an unusual 1818. Of 
course, the unusual time signature may be related to the type of movement-a 
"Scherzo", which means "joke." Rachmaninoff also uses different note groupings, 
such as two, three, six, seven or eight eighth notes to help to create his joke. 
The slow thrd movement is the shortest one among the four, with only sixty- 
eight measures. It is in ternary (ABA) form. The long, lyrical, and melancholy 
introduction is introduced by the piano, and the movement centers around E-flat. The 
F-sharp in the opening measure, resolving to G, suggests the continuing importance 
of the interval of a major second. The theme that weaves the two instruments together 
is like a dialogue. In the same manner as the A section, the theme of the B section is 
introduced by the piano, but with a harmonically altered answer in the cello. The B 
section is in G minor (a third-relation, as found in the second movement). The A 
section returns, but altered. 
The fourth movement is characterized by its rhythmic vitality and its lyrical 
second theme. Rachmaninoff focuses on rhythmic interests again. The duple and 
triple rhythmic patterns from the previous movements are reintroduced. The texture is 
thick in this movement, and there are moments of intense, brilliant, and bravura 
passages for both instruments. The form, a standard one for the early nineteenth 
century, is sonata-allegro plus coda. The harmonic framework, as well, is entirely 
within early nineteenth-century usage, having been based by Rachmaninoff on a G 
major tonality. G major is not commonly found in Rachmaninoff s works. It creates a 
positive, brilliant feeling, which makes this movement rather special. The movement, 
marked Allegro mosso, begins with a four-measure piano introduction that sets the 
mood and the pace of the first theme. The first theme begins at measure 5 in the cello 
part. It is full of rhythmic vitality, structured on the triplets. The second theme begins 
at the lyrical Moderato, changes to Piu vivo, then leads to the development section at 
the Tempo I. The theme comes back again at measure 183 and the coda begins at the 
Meno mosso. Rachmaninoff broadens it by using half notes instead of the quicker 
value of eighth or sixteenth notes. It starts to build up from Vivace to its climax, and 
ends with a triumphant marcato. 
ANTON ARENSKY (1861-1906) 
Piano Trio No. 1 in D Minor, Op.32 (1 894) 
Allegro moderato 
Scherzo 
Elegia: Adagio 
Finale: Allegro non troppo 
Arensky studied with Rimsky-Korsakov, but his style also reveals the 
influences of Chopin, Schumann, Felix Mendelssohn (1 809-1 847), and Tchaikowsky. 
His most important student was Rachmaninoff. Arensky worked in both the 
traditional Western European forms and those of his own nationality. He excelled in 
composing miniatures. Arensky's music, especially his melodies, sounds distinctly 
Russian. 
Of Arensky's chamber repertoire, the Trio No.1 in D Minor, Op. 32 is his best 
known extended work. Composed in 1894 in memory of the Russian cellist Charles 
Davidov, Arensky's Piano Trio displays a melodic facility and fluent compositional 
technique. 
The first movement of this Piano Trio is in sonata-allegro form. Like his 
student Rachrnaninoff, Arensky uses triple and duple rhythmic combinations in the 
first movement, but the melodic line is not as long as Rachmaninoff s. The texture is 
simpler and more transparent, and the accompaniment part does not have so many 
variants as Rachmaninoff s. The first movement is built around three themes: the first 
dramatic, the second lyrical, and the third more passionate. The accent on the fourth 
and final beat of the first theme creates a sigh over the rising melody, a sigh begins 
which in the violin part. From measure 14 to measure 17, there are fugue-like 
figurations exchanged between the cello and violin. In the Piu mosso section, 
Arensky develops his sigh-motives into "sighing phrases" and contrast them with 
flourish figurations in measures 37 and 38 (which provide a sense of virtuosity) 
before eventually leading to the expansive, lyrical second theme. The register of the 
cello part is higher than the piano part in the second theme, resolving the balance 
issue that can be encountered when the two instruments are combined. Beginning in 
measure 62, the passion of the third theme is made evident by a fortissimo marking 
and accents. In the second Piu mosso section, there are "struggles" between the piano 
and the stringed instruments. In the development section, Arensky uses the first 
thematic material, triplet and sixteenth-note figurations, and fugue-like sequential 
patterns again as in the exposition. The piano part still functions primarily as an 
accompaniment, while parallel motion between the string instruments appears from 
measure 127 with tremolos. A pedal point on A finally resolves to D, at the 
recapitulation. The thematic material and the triplet figurations come back again in 
the coda. 
The playful Scherzo is in Ternary (ABA) form, like the Scherzo of 
Rachmaninoff s Cello Sonata. Arensky brings about a masterful union of melodic and 
rhythmic refinement to capture the elegant atmosphere of a salon. In the beginning, 
he uses violin harmonics and the pizzicato in the cello part. Those two techniques 
produce a special effect. From measure 4 to the measure 6, Arensky also uses 
decreasing groupings (from twelve, to eleven, to ten) to create a joke-like effect to 
enhance the characteristic of the Scherzo. Arensky seems to favor the hgher register 
for the piano part in the Allegro molto section, which creates a twinkling sound. The 
Meno mosso section is waltz-like, and contrasts with the light, playful Allegro molto 
section. Arensky puts accents on weak beats to further support his joke-like effects. 
The "G.P." (grand pause) markings in measures 200 and several other places reminds 
one of Haydn, who liked to use unexpected pauses. The short motivic material of the 
Allegro molto appears again in the transiton section to prepare to go back to the A 
section. Again, Arensky ends this Scherzo joking with the use of a "G.P.". 
The Elegia is in Ternary (ABA) form. The opening dotted rhythm provides 
some of the funeral march-like character.Unlike the previous movements, this thrd 
movement begins with the cello (with the piano serving as an accompaniment). 
Arensky continues with the imitative 1 contrapuntal writing from the first movement 
in the A section. In the B section, the roles of the stringed instruments and the piano 
are reversed. The piano plays the theme and the stringed instruments provide the 
accompaniment. There are conversations between the cello (and piano) and the violin 
at the second part of the B section. At the beginning of the second part of the B 
section, the pizzicato marking appears again in the cello, and the violin harmonics are 
brought back at measure 55, in a similar technique to the second movement. The 
altered A section comes back again at Tempo I. It also starts with B-flat, but unlike 
the beginning of the movement, occurs in the violin instead of the cello. 
The brilliant Finale has an orchestral effect. The piano part has full chords, 
and the two stringed instruments answer with virtuosic passages. The emotional range 
in the last movement is wide-from the finest pianissimo to an overwhelming 
fortissimo. Arensky shifts the tempo often in this movement to intensify different 
emotional levels. The Allegro non troppo changes to a Piu vivo, an Andante recalling 
the beginning of the first movement ends in an Adagio, and then an Allegro molto 
intensifying from pianissimo to fortissimo sweeps away the melancholy memories. 
Thematic material is constantly developed, with opening material placed in 
contrast against later material. Arensky combines many thematic ideas from previous 
movements in this movement as a flashy summary. At its opening, the double dotted 
rhythm recalls the beginning of the Elegia. In fact, the 314 time signature is the same 
as that of the second movement. At measures 56 and 67, the accents are on the first 
and the third beats, which remind one of the Meno mosso section in the second 
movement. Tremolo in the string instruments, such as at measure 19, is also similar in 
technique to what Arensky did in the first movement (ms. 129-136). There are also 
some rhythmic alterations in the last movement, such as the triplets in measure 24 
(compare to the third movement). From measure 24 to measure 34, the fugue-like 
writing fiom the first movement is used again between the violin and the cello while 
the piano material in the Piu vivo section occurs fi-om the very beginning of the fourth 
movement. The altered rhythmic material at the beginning of the Adagio and Allegro 
molto recalls the opening of the Elegia, but the time signature of the Allegro molto is 
314 instead of 414. 
* * * * * 
Recital I11 
Recital program 
Fairy Tale, Op. 51, No. 3 in A Major Nikolay Medtner (1 880-195 1) 
"Bird7s Tale" from Romantic Sketches for the Young, Op. 54, Book 1 
From 24 Characteristic Pieces, Op. 36 
No. 16 "Elegie" 
Anton Arensky (1861-1914) 
No. 5, in E-Flat Minor from Pr2s de la mer, Six Esquisses, Op. 52 
Sonata No. 3 in F-Sharp Minor, Op. 23 Alexander Scriabin (1 872-1 9 15) 
Dramatic0 
Allegretto 
Andante 
Presto con fuoco 
Intermission 
No. 3 "~tude" from Four Pieces, Op. 25 Anton Arensky (1861-1914) 
Essais sur des rhythms oubliks, Op. 28 
No. 1 Logaedes 
No. 2 Peons 
No. 4 Sari 
From 24 Characteristic Pieces, Op. 36 
No. 13 "~tude" 
REverie du soir, Op. 3 Sergei Liapunoff (1 850-1924) 
No. 8 "Epic Song" from 12 ~tudes d'exkcution transcendante, Op. 11 
Hung Luo, Pianist 
Monday, February 19,2007 at 8:00 pm 
Joseph & Alma Gildenhorn Recital Hall 
Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center 
The University of Maryland at College Park 
School of Music 
Notes on the Propam 
This recital program is the result of my exploration and study of the 
distinctive stylistic characteristics of piano works written by four Russian composers 
from the late-Romantic period: Nikolay Medtner (1 88&195 I), Anton Arensky 
(1861-1914), Alexander Scriabin (1872-1915), and Sergei Liapunoff (1850-1924). 
NIKOLAY MEDTNER (1880-1951) 
Fairy Tale in A Major, Op. 51, No. 3 (?1928) 
"Bird's Tale" from Romantic Sketches for the Young, Op. 54, Book I (?1932) 
Medtner studied with Anton Arensky (1861-1906) and Sergri Taneyev 
(1 856-1 915), and was influenced by Johannes Brahrns (1 833-1 897). Medtner was a 
prolific composer who focused mainly on piano music. His style reflects a sonorous 
and colorful Romantic style, but also shows ties to classicism as reflected in his use of 
sonata forms. Many of his works are difficult. His music is generally emotionally 
reserved and permeated with intellectual rigor. Medtner's output includes fourteen 
Sonatas, thirty-three Fairy Tales, and many other miniatures. His Fairy Tale, Op. 5 1, 
No. 3, in A Major reflects the casual, relaxed French salon style. An innocent and 
charming piece that gives lots of space for the imagination, it is written in ABA form 
with a coda. 
The "Bird's Tale" from Romantic Sketches for the Young, Op. 54, Book I, is a 
good example of descriptive music. Medtner's vivid imagination shows through the 
whole piece. This piece is written in ABA form (with introduction and coda). 
ANTON ARENSKY (1861-1914) 
From 24 Characteristic Pieces, Op. 36 
No. 13 "Etude" 
No. 16 "Elegie" 
No. 5, in E flat minor from Pr2s de la mer, Six Esquisses, Op. 52 
No.3 "Etude" from Four Pieces, Op. 25 
Essais sur des rythmes oubliks, Op. 28 
No. 1 "Loga6des" 
No. 2 "Pkons" 
No. 4 "Stili" 
Arensky excelled in composing miniatures. He studied with Nicolai Rimsky- 
Korsakov (1 844-1908), but his style also reveals the influences of Frkderic Chopin 
(1 8 1 0-1849), Robert Schumann (1 8 10-1 856), Felix Mendelssohn (1 809-1 847)' and 
Peter Ilich Tchaikowsky (1 840-1 893). I have included two pieces from Arensky's 
Twenty Four Characteristic Pieces, Op. 36, in my recital program: No. 13 "Etude" 
and No. 16 "Elkgie." No. 13 is written in ABA form. The piece is fbll of fast scale 
writing, which reminds us of Chopin's works, but Chopin usually adds more 
chromaticism, and ths No. 13 is mostly diatonic. No. 16 is one of Arensky's finest 
pieces. It flows with a lyrical and melancholic melody, characteristic of his musical 
style. There are some syncopated rhythmic instances in this piece and it is in ABAB 
form with a coda. 
One Arensky's short solo piano piece I will perform is No. 5 in E-Flat Minor 
from PrGs de la mer, Six Esquisses (Near the Sea, Six Sketches), Op. 52. It is a 
scherzo-like miniature written in ABA form. 
In his No. 3 "~tude" from the Quatre Morceaw; (Four Pieces), Op. 25, he 
adopted a well-known Chinese tune as a theme and presented it in different keys. This 
etude, with its song-like folk tune, has great charm, such as is displayed constantly in 
his works. The beginning section of this piece includes mainly sixteenth note triplets, 
while the B section is based on the Oriental pentatonic (five-note) scale. The key 
signature (G-flat major) of the A section is also more complicated than the B section 
(B-flat major), as is the figuration, which makes for nice contrasts between two 
sections. Arensky deviates in this piece from a standard ABA form by bringing back 
short B and A sections at the end of the second A section, creating an unusual 
ABAB'A'. The extended B' and A' sections do not change the key as previously. 
Arensky's unusual Essais sur des rhytlzmes oubliks (Essays on Forgotten 
Rhythms), Op. 28, are based on the unorthodox meters of ancient poetry, mostly of 
the Greeks and Romans. They are attractive musically and fascinating rhythmically. 
The first piece "Logaedes," is in 618, and features a rhythmic pattern of four (in the 
right hand) against three (in the left hand) in the first half of the measure, followed by 
a feel of three eighth notes in the second half of the measure (See musical example. 
As can be seen, the second half of the measure is equal to three eighth notes). 
"Logaedes" by A. Arensky, Op. 28, M. 1 
Piano 
Arensky grouped the right hand thirty-second notes in an unorthodox manner. In the 
first half of the measure, Arensky beamed six thirty-second notes together, followed 
by two groups of three thirty-second notes, which gives an effect of four groups of 
three thirty-second notes. It sounds like 12/32 time. The second half sounds like 318 
time. This piece is in an ABA-like form with a coda, since the B section does not 
have an independent theme (B is an inversion of A). Its theme is very similar to the A 
section. No. 2, "Peons," is in quintuple rhythm. This kind of asymmetric meter is not 
common in music of this time. The chordal writing and off-beat accents sound like 
Schumann, as in his Impromptus, Op. 5, No. 6 in C Major and his Intermezzi, Op. 4, 
No. 2 in E Minor. Ths piece is in ABA form. The A section is a thick chordal 
texture, while the B section combines a single melody against broken chords. 
Arensky used a wild range of dynamics in this piece. He also grouped this piece as 
three plus two by beaming three eighth notes together, as in measure 7, and he tied 
chords together in the right hand at measure 12. In the beginning, he does not make it 
clear. No. 4, "Sari," is comprised of musical sentences of two measures of 314, 
followed by a measure of 618. He sometimes varies his alternation between 314 and 
618. This piece is made up of written out hemiola. It has changing meters, but since 
the meter changes between the 314 and the 618, the groupings change from twos to 
threes. The sound to the audience is that of a hemiola. This piece is written in ABA 
form. 
ALEXANDER SCRIABIN (1 872-191 5) 
Sonata No. 3 in F-Sharp Minor, Op. 23 (1 897) 
Dramatico 
Allegretto 
Andante 
Presto con fuoco 
Like Medtner and Rachrnaninoff, Scriabin was a pupil of Arensky and 
Taneyev. His early piano works reflect the influence of Chopin and Franz Liszt 
(1 81 1-1886). The genres he used during this period also are reminiscent of Chopin; 
they include waltzes, nocturnes, mazurkas, impromptus, etudes, preludes, and a 
polonaise. After 1900, Scriabin's style began to move in a new direction. A chromatic 
harmonic vocabulary later evolved into a distinctive personal style. The music is full 
of uncertainty and never quite seems to rest. It is permeated with mysticism and 
eroticism-floating between tonality and atonality. 
Scriabin's Sonata No. 3 in F-Sharp Minor, Op. 23, is a large-scale, four 
movement work written in 1897. This sonata was composed almost immediately after 
the completion of the second one, and it was published by M. P. Belaieff in 1898. The 
thematic structure of ths piece is closely bound together, and its thematic "cyclic" 
treatment is reminiscent of Liszt and CCsar Frank. 
The first movement (Dramatico) appears in regular sonata-allegro form. The 
first theme opens with short broken phrases gradually rising in power. The 
Development, begins in measure 55 and extends for forty measures. It contains an 
expansion from the second thematic material. At the Recapitulation, the first theme is 
abbreviated, and the second theme is in the tonic major key, as in most sonatas of the 
Classical period. The thicker texture of the first movement is complicated, since it 
contains contrapuntal lines. Scriabin sometimes combines both themes 
simultaneously (such as ms. 128-132 and ms.136-138). 
The second movement (Allegretto) in E-flat major is in ABA form. The 
octave-doubling at the beginning contrasts with the thinner texture in the middle 
section (con grazia). At the end of the returning A section, it becomes more and more 
animated, and concludes with a intense and triumphant rush on a tonic chord of E- 
flat. 
The third movement (Andante) in B major is written in ABA form. The first 
theme lasts for sixteen bars and reappears at measure 32. This movement gradually 
dies away from measure 49, and is joined to the next movement by a bridge (built on 
the main theme from the opening of the sonata) straight into the finale. 
The Finale (Presto con fuoco) is laid out in modified sonata-allegro form. This 
movement begins with chromaticism in the right hand and a widespread arpeggio in 
the left hand. At measure 17 a contrapuntal melody is added over the chromatic 
theme. The second theme enters in the relative major at measure 37, which leads to a 
return of the first theme. The Developn~ent begins at measure 71 and is made up of a 
series of long phrases. The Recapitulation begins at measure 125, and the second 
theme starts at the Meno mosso section. A second development follows, and 
afterward Scriabin uses the dominant C-sharp pedal repetitively before the Maestoso 
coda enters at measure 202. The last twelve measures, with their fading references to 
the first theme, are colored by the minor key. 
A subtle yet close relationship may be traced between the themes throughout 
the whole piece. For instance, the second theme of the first movement is rhythmically 
similar to the opening melody of the fourth movement (right hand). The second theme 
of the first movement is expanded in the first development of the fourth movement. 
The triplet at measure 1 of the third movement reminds us of the triplet at measure 2 
of the first movement. Thus, recurring motives provide an unexpected unity to bring 
the four movements of this sonata together into a single unit. 
SERGE1 LIAPUNOFF (1 850-1 914) 
Reverie du soir, Op. 3 (1 880-1903) 
"Epic Song" from 12 ~tudes d'exe'cution transcendante, Op. 11 (1897-1905) 
Liapunoff s style combines Russian folk music elements with the influence of 
European training. Liapunoff was essentially a miniaturist. He studied with 
Tchaikowsky and Taneyev and was also influenced by Mily Balakirev (1 837-1 9 10). 
Some of his smaller piano works are reminiscent of Schumann, Chopin, and 
Mendelssohn. "Reverie du soir" (Evening Reverie), Op. 3 is an example of a piece 
that is similar to some of Chopin's nocturnes such as Op. 9, No. 1. This piece is 
written in ABA' form with a coda (the bass note B stays until the end). Like Arensky, 
Liapunoff uses many triplets. Different from Arensky's favoring of three against two, 
Liapunoff uses single notes against each triplet. Although I did not find much 
information about the composer's intentions, I assume that, based on the title and the 
way the piece was written, he meant it to be program music about an evening's 
atmosphere. 
Liapunoff s extensive piano works include a set of twelve ~tudes d'exe'cution 
transcendante, Op. 11. The title, dedication, and format of Op. 11 all reflect the 
paramount influence of Liszt. The final etude, No. 12, is entitled Eldgie en mimoire 
de Franz Liszt. These twelve pieces complete the key sequence begun by Liszt in hs 
own Transcendental Studies (Liszt wrote his Transcendental Etudes in twelve of the 
twenty-four major and minor keys). No. 8 (Epic Song) of Op. 11 is included in my 
recital program. In this piece, Liapunoff uses Russian Orthodox church music and 
Russian folk songs from his own folk song collection. The piece also includes aspects 
of thematic transformation developed by Liszt. This piece is written in free variation 
form. 
Bibliography 
Abraham, Gerald E. H. Borodin: The Composer and His Music. London: The New 
Temple Press, 1904. 
Abraham, Gerald E. H. On Russian Music. London: The New Temple Press, 1939. 
Abraham, Gerald E. H. Studies in Russian Music. Freeport, New York: Books for 
Libraries Press, 1936. 
Beavers, Clyde E. "A Survey of the Works for Violoncello and Piano by Segei 
Rachrnaninoff." DMA diss., University of Kentucky, 1997. 
Bowers, Faubion. Scriabin: A Biography of the Russian Composer. Vol. 2. Otowa: 
Kodansha International Ltd., 1969. 
Breheda, Vera. "The Original Solo Piano Works of Mily Balalurev." DMA diss., 
University of Washngton, 1983. 
Brook, Donald. Six Great Russian Composers. Freeport, New York: Books for 
Libraries Press, 1946. 
Gordon, Stewart. A History of Keyboard Literature: Music for the Piano and Its 
Forerunners. New York: Schinner Books, 1996. 
Hinson, Maurice. Program note from Klavier Variations on La Folia. Performed by 
James Bonn. Klavier Records, 1982. KS-57 1 .LP. 
Hull. A Great Russian Tone-Poet Scriabin. 19 18. 
Martyn, Barrie. Rachmaninofl Composer, Pianist, Conductor. Aldershot, Hants, 
England: Scolar Press, 1990. 
Martyn, Barrie. Nicolas Medtner: His Life and Music. Aldershot, Hants, England: 
Scolar Press, 1995. 
Matthew-Walker, Robert. Rachmaninofi London: Omnibus Press, 1980. 
Roberts, Peter Deane. Modernism in Russian Piano Music. Vols. 1 and 2. 
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993. 
Sadie, Stanley. "Arensky, Anton Stepanovich." In The New Grove Dictionary of 
Music and Musicians. Vol. 1. London: Macmillan Publishers Limited, 1980. 
Sadie, Stanley. "Lyadov, Anatol Konstantinovich." In The New Grove Dictiona y of 
Music and Musicians. Vol. 1 1. London: Macmillan Publishers Limited, 1980. 
Sadie, Stanley. "Lyapunov, Sergey Mikhaylovich." In The New Grove Dictionary of 
Music and Musicians. Vol. 1 1. London: Macmillan Publishers Limited, 1980. 
Seroff, Victor I. The Mighty Five: The Cradle of Russian National Music. Freeport, 
New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1948. 
Venturini, Donald J. Alexander Glazounov: His Life and Worh. Delphos, Ohio: 
Aero Printing, 1992. 
Zetlin, Mikhail Osipovich. The Five: The Evolution of the Russian School of Music. 
Translated and edited by George Panin. New York: International Universities 
Press, 1959. 
Proquest I University of Maryland Submission Agreement 
By signing below, I agree to the following: 
Through the University of Maryland Graduate School, I agree to supply the University of Maryland 
and ProQuest Information and Learning Company ("PQIL") my dissertation and an abstract of 350 words 
or less or my Masters thesis and an abstract of 150 words or less ("My Manuscript") along with the 
following information: personal and degree data, title and subject data and, if needed, written permission 
to use previously copyrighted materials within the body of the work including images, video, graphics, 
text, data and images of individuals and licenses for third party software which will be replicated, 
distributed and used with the document. 
I hereby grant the University of Maryland, College Park, a non-exclusive, fully paid, irrevocable 
right and license to host, cache, route, transmit, archive, reproduce, distribute, perform, display, and 
reformat My Manuscript, in whole or in part, in and from an electronic format, as of the submission date 
stipulated in the submission of this document and approved by the University of Maryland. 
I understand that the University of Maryland will submit My Manuscript to PQIl-0 Dissertations 
Publishing for inclusion in the publications Dissertation Abstracts International or Masters Abstracts 
International. I hereby grant PQIL a non-exclusive right to host, cache, route, transmit, archive, 
reproduce, distribute, perform, display, and reformat My Manuscript, in whole or in part, in any format 
whether in existence now or developed in the future, including but not limited to microfilm and any 
electronic formats. Other publication rights may be granted as I choose. 
I represent and warrant that (a) My Manuscript is my original work; (b) any third party content 
included in My Manuscript is either in the public domain, constitutes a fair use under copyright law, or is 
included with the written permission from the owner of copyright in such third party content; (c) excluding 
third party content, I am the sole owner of My Manuscript and have the authority to grant these licenses, 
and (d) does not violate the copyright, privacy or publicity, or any other personal, proprietary or intellectual 
property rights of any third party and is free of scandalous, libelous, and/or unlawful matter. I agree to 
supply the University of Maryland with copies of the permissions I have obtained from third parties to use 
their copyrighted content and acknowledge that ProQuest and the University of Maryland have the right 
not to distribute My Manuscript if, in their reasonable judgment, either believes My Manuscript violates 
any of these representations and warranties. 
I acknowledge that I retain copyright and ownership rights in My Manuscript and have the right to 
exercise any of my rights under copyright in My Manuscript, including for example, publishing a book 
andlor articles based on My Manuscript. 
Subject to the preceding paragraphs, PQIL agrees to offer copies of My Manuscript and to 
publish an abstract of My Manuscript in Dissertation Abstracts International or Masters Abstracts 
International, as appropriate. In accordance with the Copyright Act of 1976, PQIL will deposit one copy of 
My Manuscript with the Library of Congress. This deposit will be in digital, microform, or other format as 
required by the Library of Congress and will be available for inspection. PQIL also agrees to pay me a 
royalty equal to ten percent (10%) on all income it receives from distribution of My Manuscript in any 
format provided that in order for me to receive a royalty payment in any calendar year, the royalty 
payment due me must exceed Ten Dollars ($10.00) and I must have advised PQIL of my current address. 
-- . 
/ /--- - -- 
/ 
Stydent Signature 
Ay:~' -) G- xx.7 
Date